Introduction

The case of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors ([2022] EWCA Civ 13) addresses a significant legal issue concerning the granting of injunctions against unidentified and unknown persons, collectively referred to as "newcomers." These individuals, often part of communities such as Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers, and New Travellers, may potentially establish unauthorized encampments on local authority land. The local authorities sought both interim and final injunctions to prevent such occurrences. The central question revolved around whether courts possess the authority to issue final injunctions against persons unknown, thereby binding newcomers from occupying and trespassing on public lands.

The appellants, comprising 38 local authorities, challenged the lower court's decision which restricted final injunctions to identified and contestable parties. They argued that this limitation was erroneous and not adequately supported by prior case law, notably disputing the interpretations set forth in the Canada Goose and Cameron cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) delivered a landmark judgment overturning the lower court's stance on the matter. The Court held that final injunctions could indeed be granted against persons unknown, thereby encompassing newcomers, provided that specific procedural safeguards are in place. The judgment emphasized that prior decisions, such as in Canada Goose and Cameron, were misinterpreted by the lower court and did not preclude the issuance of final injunctions in cases of unauthorized encampments.

The Court of Appeal criticized the judge's reliance on limited sections of prior rulings and underscored the applicability of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in governing such injunctions. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, establishing that local authorities retain the capacity to seek final injunctions against persons unknown, thereby strengthening their tools to manage unauthorized encampments.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases that form the backbone of the legal framework governing injunctions against persons unknown. These include:

• Canada Goose UK Retail Ltd. v. Persons Unknown ([2020] EWCA Civ 202) – Addressed the scope of injunctions against unidentified protestors.
• Cameron v. Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd ([2019] UKSC 6) – Explored the principles of suing unnamed defendants, particularly in the context of motor accidents.
• South Cambridgeshire District Council v. Gammell ([2006] 1 WLR 658) – Established that newcomers who breach injunctions become parties to the proceedings.
• Ineos Upstream Ltd v. Persons Unknown and others ([2019] EWCA Civ 515) – Confirmed the validity of injunctions against persons unknown in environmental protest contexts.
• Bromley London Borough Council v Persons Unknown ([2020] EWCA Civ 12) – Discussed the balance between public interest and the rights of the Gypsy and Traveller communities.
• Cuadrilla Bowland Ltd v. Persons Unknown ([2020] 4 WLR 29) – Addressed committals for breach of final injunctions in fracking-related encampments.
• Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd v. News Group Newspapers Ltd ([2003] EWHC 1205) – Focused on injunctions against unknown persons involved in unauthorized publication activities.
• Porter ([2003] UKHL 26) – Examined the proportionality of injunctions against individuals and the implications under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

These precedents collectively informed the Court's understanding of the legal landscape, emphasizing that while injunctions against persons unknown are exceptional, they remain within the court's jurisdiction provided procedural safeguards are adhered to.

Legal Reasoning

The Court scrutinized the lower court's interpretation of previous rulings, particularly highlighting a misapplied distinction between interim and final injunctions. The lower court had erroneously extended the principle that final injunctions are limited to parties involved in the proceedings, disregarding established rulings where persons unknown became parties upon breaching injunctions.

The Court emphasized that under the Senior Courts Act 1981, section 37, the High Court retains broad discretion to grant injunctions deemed just and convenient, without imposing artificial limitations based on the nature of the injunction (interim vs. final). The Court argued that final injunctions could enforce restrictions against all persons falling within the defined scope of the injunction, including future newcomers, as long as the procedural requirements of the CPR were satisfied.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the procedural fairness and the necessity of providing opportunities for affected individuals to contest injunctions. It upheld that final injunctions, when correctly served and justified, do not infringe upon the fundamental principles of civil litigation, especially when breaches render individuals parties to the proceedings.

Impact

This judgment significantly impacts the legal framework surrounding unauthorized encampments and similar cases. By affirming that final injunctions can be extended to persons unknown, local authorities are empowered with enhanced tools to prevent and address unauthorized use of public lands. This decision balances the authorities' need to maintain public order and the rights of individuals to challenge such injunctions when they become identifiable parties.

Additionally, the judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards outlined in the CPR, ensuring that injunctions are clear, precise, and subject to review. This promotes fairness and transparency in civil proceedings, safeguarding individual rights while enabling effective public administration.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Injunction

A final injunction is a court order issued at the conclusion of a case, providing a permanent resolution to prevent certain actions unless modified by the court.

Persons Unknown

Persons unknown refer to individuals who are not identified at the time an injunction is sought. These individuals may later be identified through breaches of the injunction, thereby becoming parties to the proceedings.

Newcomers

Newcomers are individuals who may potentially establish unauthorized encampments on public land in the future. They are categorized as persons unknown until they take specific actions that identify them as parties to the injunction.

Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)

The Civil Procedure Rules set out the standardized processes and procedures for conducting civil litigation in England and Wales, ensuring consistency and fairness in judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's decision in London Borough of Barking and Dagenham & Anor v Persons Unknown & Ors marks a pivotal development in the jurisprudence surrounding injunctions against persons unknown. By overturning the lower court's restrictive interpretation, the judgment reaffirms the courts' capacity to issue final injunctions against unidentified individuals under appropriate procedural conditions. This enhances the legal mechanisms available to local authorities in managing unauthorized encampments, ensuring public order while maintaining avenues for individual rights to challenge such orders once identity is established.

Moving forward, this precedent will guide future cases involving injunctions against persons unknown, emphasizing the necessity for clear definitions, precise descriptions, and adherence to procedural safeguards. It balances the prerogative of public authorities to maintain order with the fundamental principles of fairness and justice in civil litigation.